Fundamentally Wrong

But they don’t care. The Narrative is the Narrative. The Agenda is The Agenda.
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. “Reality control,” they called it: in Newspeak, “doublethink.”1984 By George Orwell.

There’s Something Fundamentally Wrong With Liberals
That liberals are hypocrites is not news. Just take a look at the net worth of any Democratic Party leader who routinely rails against the “1 percent.” But in the age of Trump, where the hatred that normally drives what we’re told is the “tolerant” left has been turned up to 11. All standards have gone out the window; no hypocrisy is too great, no conspiracy theory too insane for someone on the left to advance it and its drone army to believe.

It must be easy to be a liberal in 2017. You don’t have to think for yourself. You don’t have to prove anything. And your life can swirl in a bubble where you’ll never have anything you say challenged in a serious way. Liberals have become the bad guy in Lethal Weapon 2 – their membership in the progressive club grants them a sort of diplomatic immunity from reality.

The same people who cheered the release of traitor Bradley Manning after serving only seven of 35 years for giving thousands of classified national security secrets to Wikileaks clutch their pearls to this day over the same website publishing unclassified emails from the Clinton campaign.

Is Wikileaks evil or righteous? Do they support the information it receives only if that information damages national security and puts American lives at risk? Sure seems like it.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, the left has become the Fox Mulder of politics. There is nothing beyond the pale or too insane to be advanced…as long as it is against a Republican. If it’s not, if it’s critical of the left, it’s dismissed as paranoia.

I’ve never written or spoken about the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich because, honestly, I haven’t seen anything but wild speculation about it. Was he the source of the DNC email leak to Wikileaks? I have no idea. If someone offers real proof, I’ll bite. Until then his death is just another senseless murder.

The lack of evidence hasn’t stopped some on the right from connecting dots that may or may not exist to advance a political agenda. But just because I tend to agree with a lot of the policy objectives the people connecting those dots want advocate not mean I’m on board with everything they do. If I’m disgusted when a Democrat does something, I’m disgusted when a Republican does it too. The same can’t be said for liberals.

Liberal journalists raged against the right over Rich both because there was a grieving family here and it’s distasteful to dredge up conspiracy theories in that circumstance, and because they are outraged a story has advanced for which there is no evidence. These are awful behaviors, but the left engages in them frequently and gleefully.

On the matter of advancing theories lacking proof, there isn’t a liberal publication that not only functions under the assumption Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton, but prints stories and editorials alleging it on a regular basis.

 

It’s been almost a year and there is still zero evidence of this conspiracy, yet the Washington Post, New York Times, and every other left-wing birdcage liner has a team of reporters opining in their pages and on cable news about how this myth is fact.

Even Democratic members of Congress, who’d sacrifice their grandchildren to find a crumb of proof, have admitted there is none. It had to kill Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Maxine Waters to admit it, but they did. Journalists can’t.

Instead they run anonymously sourced stories, many of which are denied on the record by the very people implicated in them. They leave those stories, uncorrected, on their websites because the conspiracy must be true.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had to have threatened to resign if the president used his letter as justification for firing FBI Director James Comey; anonymous sources told them he did.

Never mind that Rosenstein personally, unambiguously denied the story. Liberals need it to be true. As such, the original story sits, uncorrected, on the Washington Post website without mention of Rosenstein’s unequivocal denial. It would be journalistic malpractice…if journalism still had standards.

 

The same goes for countless stories in which Casper the Friendly Leaker whispers something into the ear of some liberal reporter that fits the narrative so perfectly it snaps in place like the last Lego.

Comey was fired just after requesting more money for Russia probe? Obviously. It doesn’t matter that the acting Director of the FBI denied it under oath or that there is zero evidence; it just has to be true.

Someone is going to read you a couple of lines over the phone from a “dear diary” entry by Comey that claimed the president “hoped” the FBI would leave Michael Flynn alone? It doesn’t matter that you don’t know the context, or that Comey didn’t tell anyone at the time, or you weren’t even allowed to see the words on the page. Trump is corrupt, so it has to be true. And so on.

When it comes to love of anti-Trump-perfectly-fitting-the-left-wing-narrative conspiracy theories, facts just get in the way. Journalists are ready to roll around like a happy dog in the sun on the grassy knoll of news.

 

As for the idea that respect for the dead should dictate decorum, these credentialed degenerates stepped down from their high horses long enough to cheer the death of Fox News founder Roger Ailes. I don’t know how damaged someone has to be to write the things they wrote – thinking something sick is one thing; believing the world needs to know it is a disorder yet to be named – yet there they were, dancing on his grave before his family even had a chance to digest their loss.

You say someone is a monster and insensitive to the family for theorizing about a murder last summer, but you can’t wait for the body to get cold to express glee over someone’s passing because you didn’t like their politics? There’s a special place in hell for people like that.

Liberals, particularly journalists, have morphed into something very disturbing since the arrival of Donald Trump onto the political scene. They’ve achieved a new level of hypocrisy and disgusting cruelty that would shame a normal person.

Something deep inside them, at their core, is fundamentally damaged. Whether it was broken before the election or not is irrelevant, it’s their driving force now. Were they civilians, they’d likely be shouting at streetlights and losing the argument. Since they’re journalists, they’ll probably win a Pulitzer. (Derek Hunter)

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Shameful

The (pardon the pun) whitewashing and cleansing of history so liberals can rewrite it in their own image has gotten to another shameful level.

New Orleans Removes Statue Of Robert E. Lee

Photo by Annie Flanagan for The Washington Post via Getty Images
By:

Hank Berrien

On Friday, the city of New Orleans is removing a 20-foot statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Lee’s statue is the fourth and last of Confederate-related statues that the city has removed, although unlike the others, Lee’s statue will be taken down during the day. The removal of the statues followed a 2015 City Council vote; Confederate President Jefferson Davis’ statue was taken down last week; Confederate Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s on Wednesday; and a monument memorializing a 1874 white-supremacist uprising was removed in April. The other statues were taken down in pre-dawn hours because there were alleged threats against contractors and workers scheduled to remove them.

AP reported that the city issued a news release stating the statues were “erected decades after the Civil War to celebrate the ‘Cult of the Lost Cause,’ a movement recognized across the South as celebrating and promoting white supremacy.” 

<<BUZZER>  Sorry, wrong answer.

The statue of the general sat atop Lee Circle, a vaunted roundabout in the Crescent City. Since 1884, Lee has stood in a place of prominence atop a multistory, white stone column facing north allowing Lee to keep a watchful eye on “the enemy.”

Mayor Mitch Landrieu has been pushing for the removal of the statues since the 2015 massacre of nine black parishioners at a South Carolina church by Dylann Roof, who termed himself a racist and displayed Confederate battle flags in photos.

Giving the Left the excuse they needed. As you remember, this is when th “Dukes of Hazzard” was also banned. The Democrats are burying their own history and making it look sanctimonious.

Landrieu said last month, “We will no longer allow the Confederacy to literally be put on a pedestal in the heart of our city.”

“They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stood for,” Landrieu said, noting that Lee and the Confederate army fought against the United States. “They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots.”

As for the statues themselves, the city said it has received offers from public and private institutions to take individual monuments; only nonprofits and governmental entities will qualify. The city insisted that anyone who submits a proposal must explain how they would “place the statues in context both in terms of why they were first erected and why the city chose to remove them in 2015.” They are banned from displaying them outdoors on public property within the city. 

Substitute “statues/monuments” for plans in the following quote from Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

history2

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. “Reality control,” they called it: in Newspeak, “doublethink.”–1984 By George Orwell
Mini-Documentary: Lee was not a “white supremacist” but that does fit the Sanctimonious Liberal Narrative. So History must change to support it.

SJW Math

Yes, you to can inject Liberal Social Justice Racism & Exclusion into any equation.

The phrase “two plus two equals five” (“2 + 2 = 5”) is a slogan used in many different forms of media, most notably in Part One, Chapter Seven of the book 1984 by George Orwell. In the novel, it is used as an example of an obviously false dogma that one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans promoted by the Party in the novel. It is contrasted with the phrase “two plus two makes four”, the obvious—but politically incorrect—truth.

the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls one’s own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink (“Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once”)

Reality is set by The Party. The Party is Reality.

Orwell wrote:

Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. … The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened” – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.”

So if The Party (aka Democrats and SJW Liberals) say 2+2=5, then it does. The End.

The Party is Reality and Reality is The Party. Math included.

  • Teach for America and EdX are partnering to provide a training course for middle-school math teachers on how to incorporate social justice into their curricula.
  • According to the course developers, regular math is “too abstract” for many students, and incorporating social justice can help them better understand “the power and meaning” of math.

This summer, middle school math teachers can learn how to incorporate social justice issues like racism and privilege into their classrooms.

Teaching Social Justice through Secondary Mathematics” is a six-week online course designed by Teach for America and offered through EdX, which provides free online classes from top universities such as Harvard University, MIT, and Columbia University.

“Do you ask students to think deeply about…social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?”   

Unveiled earlier this month, the course aims to teach math instructors how to craft lesson-plans that incorporate social justice in order to raise their students’ awareness.

“Do you ask students to think deeply about global and local social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?” a course overview asks. “This education and teacher training course will help you blend secondary math instruction with topics such as inequity, poverty, and privilege to transform students into global thinkers and mathematicians.”

According to the website, the course can even help students to learn math, because while many aspects of middle- and high-school math “can seem abstract to students,” the developers claim that “setting the mathematics within a specially-developed social justice framework can help students realize the power and meaning of both the data and social justice concerns.”

Participants in the online course are given sample ideas for lessons they could create, such as using math to teach students about “Unpaid Work Hours in the Home by Gender” and “Race and Imprisonment Rates in the United States.”

The module also identifies five main themes of “intersectional mathematics,” including “mathematical ethics,” which refers to the notion that math is often used as a tool of oppression, according to the instructors.

“For centuries, mathematics has been used as a dehumanizing tool,” they write, citing the example of how IQ can be used against people who score in the lower half of the distribution.

To remedy math’s contribution to oppression, teachers are thus encouraged to think of ways that math can be used to advocate for marginalized populations, to which end they are encouraged to read an article by an English teacher from Hawaii, Christina Torres, who argues that failing to teach students about social justice is a “wasted opportunity” to provide them with the “tools to subvert power, question normalcy, and change society as we understand it.”

Despite its emphasis on liberal priorities, the instructors insist that social justice can be taught “without bias” as long as instructors select topics that they feel they can discuss with neutrality.

“This is not an opportunity for a teacher to impose his or her beliefs on the students. It is important to choose topics about which you feel you can be pedagogically neutral,” they state, clarifying that “Quality social justice and mathematics exploration in the K-12 classroom should be apolitical and non-agenda-driven.”

Danielle Montoya, vice president of communications at Teach for America, told Campus Reform that social justice is a part of “culturally responsive teaching” while praising the course as a model for promoting “positive change” and civic engagement.

“We share the understanding that social justice is recognizing and acting upon our individual and collective ability to create positive change,” Montoya said. “This is one way to give students the tools to be engaged citizens, prepared to contribute to their communities.”

2+2=5 because they say so. Period. The End. That’s is the reality of The Left.

Orwell writes:

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?

Image result for 2+2=5

Take CAIR Who You Offend

A local business in the state of California was slapped with a fine simply for doing what they saw was safest for their customers. An amusement park in Livermore, CA was forced to pay out a cash settlement to several young ladies who were not allowed to ride go-carts at their park. At the time, the park had a safety measure in place to keep riders safe. This included banning a variety of loose clothing items that may come off or restrict vision. A loose piece of clothing coming off of a rider could be a danger to them or others.

For example, if a scarf were to come partially off and get caught in the motor or wheels it could do deadly harm to the rider. This policy did not allow passengers to use the go-carts while wearing anything loose like a head scarf. According to the policy:

“If fashion, religious expression, or your hair style is more important to you than safety, that’s fine. You can do what you want with your life. You just can’t do it at our park.”

A local business in the state of California was slapped with a fine simply for doing what they saw was safest for their customers. An amusement park in Livermore, CA was forced to pay out a cash settlement to several young ladies who were not allowed to ride go-carts at their park. At the time, the park had a safety measure in place to keep riders safe. This included banning a variety of loose clothing items that may come off or restrict vision. A loose piece of clothing coming off of a rider could be a danger to them or others.

For example, if a scarf were to come partially off and get caught in the motor or wheels it could do deadly harm to the rider. This policy did not allow passengers to use the go-carts while wearing anything loose like a head scarf. According to the policy:

“If fashion, religious expression, or your hair style is more important to you than safety, that’s fine. You can do what you want with your life. You just can’t do it at our park.”

Even though the same policy also covered other headwear, it was held out as being a direct test of the Muslim faith. The case started as a direct result of an incident that occurred at Boomers in Liverpool. In August of 2013, a group of seven Muslim girls and women along with a Sikh man were not allowed to operate go-carts while wearing head scarves or turbans. Each of the guests was offered another type of headgear to wear, but they refused. They would have been allowed to ride the go-carts dressed in a safer, alternative head covering.

Boomer’s was owned by Palace Entertainment, who was named in the complaint. The complaint was filed in August of 2014 with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). According to the complaint:

“The law guarantees Californians of all faiths access to places of business and entertainment, and safety concerns must be founded on more than speculation or stereotype. We are pleased that Palace Entertainment worked with DFEH to achieve resolution of these cases without the need for litigation.”

The settlement, in this case, was paid to each of the claimants in the form of a $4,000 check. It will also force the amusement park to change their safety guidelines to allow the use of the head scarves. The larger ramifications were explained in a statement made by the CAIR representative handling the case:

“It means that people won’t be denied access to this attraction just because of their religious beliefs. They will be able to participate like every other member of their family or their friends.”

The new policy does not explain how the company will keep both those wearing head scarves and other riders safe in the event one becomes loose and causes an accident. This may, in fact, leave the park open to lawsuits in the case of an injury. CAIR was quick to point out that other amusement parks like Disneyland do not have the same rules. They failed to mention that Disneyland also does not have the same type of go-carts in operation.

Unfortunately, this is not the first case of a head scarf interfering with basic safety. It is also not the first time they have taken the demand to wear the head scarves to court. A recent case in Michigan was just dismissed as a woman being booked into jail requested to remain in possession of her head scarf. The Oceana County Sheriff’s Office deputies instructed Fatme Dakroub to remove her head scarf as she was booked. She later sued to say this was mistreatment.

Dakroub was lawfully arrested for driving without a license. When she was arrested, she was booked into jail and expected to change completely out of her personal clothing like any other inmate. Due to a safety risk, she was also asked to remove the large scarf. To allow her to keep her head covered, she was offered an alternative in the form of a hooded shirt.

The inmate insisted she was mistreated and punished for her religious beliefs when she was treated like all other prisoners. This simply was not true as the scarf was a huge safety risk for both Dakroud and others in custody. Luckily, in this case, the courts sided with the jail. According to a statement issued by the jail:

“Allowing Plaintiff to retain possession of a lengthy scarf while she was in a jail holding cell presented significant security concerns for the Plaintiff, other inmates and corrections officers… officers acted solely upon considerations of the good order and discipline of the Oceana Jail, and by applying sound principles of safety within a correctional facility.”

While these two cases are different in the reasons they asked for the women involved to remove head scarves, it came down to safety in both cases. One has to wonder if the next lawsuit will be tied to an injury when someone is allowed to wear a scarf without regard for safety. Each of the women involved was offered alternatives to keep their heads covered to respect their religious beliefs.

But Ideological advantage, power, and control mean more.

You will bow to them, sooner or later, because you will have no choice. Right?

Freedom is Slavery

 

Rational, I think not!

I dare you to think of a rational thought after reading this dribble for a HuffPo Blogger. It has none so it’s on it own universe.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm. There are two reasons for ensuring mental capacity. First, one of the Five Aims is to ensure domestic tranquility and there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity. Second, if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm.

Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect. A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons. In addition, there are reasons why cops are trained to use a firearm in stressful situations. It is not to keep their mind at ease or anything of that sort, but to be able to fire accurately at the target in the correct location. It is immensely difficult to fire when under pressure. Moreover, one may argue this is an analogous argument and yes it is because the United States government is lobbied to not study or fund research that observes the effects of guns. This cripples the chance of evaluating a proper policy to deal with gun violence. But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation.

Once again, if there is an argument in the reasoning of this amendment and others, one must filter it through the Five Aims of the USA and the Bill of Rights. This is to ensure that any argument can be answered, avoiding a political divide.

But there is nothing BUT a political divide in this inane silliness that you laid out, dearie. You need mental help, and fast…

Word Games

The Left has added another word to their bag of tricks.

Most people have long thought Google shows a left-wing bias in its behavior, even in how it provides search results. Now there is proof based on Google’s changing the definition of “fascism.”

Background. The father of fascism, Benito Mussolini, was a lifelong radical Socialist. He didn’t suddenly veer from his extreme leftism to become a right winger and invent fascism. Fascism, like all left-wing ideologies, denies individualism and forces a collective, everything-for-the-state mentality.

Google and the left. Now that there are morons like the group “Antifa” running around the country claiming to be anti-fascists, it seems Google wants to try and redefine the term.

 

Why? Maybe so these extreme left-wingers, who are actually behaving like fascists, don’t look so stupid? Who knows? Maybe the owner, who is a left-winger himself, doesn’t quite grasp what the term means. From The Daily Caller:

Has Google, the world’s most popular search engine, changed the definition of the word “fascism” to protect liberal mobs using violence to silence those who disagree with them politically? The evidence suggests they have.

Political conservatives advocate for small, less intrusive government where power rests with the states and individuals, and the federal government lives within its Constitutional restraints. Progressive liberals advocate for just the opposite: a powerful central government with authority vested in a strong leader who has the ability to impose decrees from Washington on everything from health care to education.

Google curiously adds “right-wing” to its definition and omits the “severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” part.

First Up: Merriam-Webster:

fascism1

a political movement that employs the principlesand methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43. (Dictionary.com)

Below is a photo that shows the definitions of fascism when doing a Google search:

fascism

Why this matters? It matters because it’s just another way the left is keeping people ignorant and uninformed. They need to keep their supporters dumbed down because they wouldn’t want them to actually understand the truth. Either that or those on the left are not smart enough to actually grasp the concept of fascism.

By continuing to keep people uninformed, they continue to encourage bad behavior as well as ignorance, which is often far more dangerous.

The left doesn’t want people to learn the truth about history because if they did, they would never vote for a leftist again.

 A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. [RobertO. Paxton, “The Anatomy of Fascism,” 2004
Sound Like the Left to you?

 

 

Orwell Makeover

 Update on Prior Blog. Could be a new Reality Series… 🙂

The University of Arizona recently announced that it will revise its controversial “Social Justice Advocates” position after facing a week of backlash from conservative media.

As Campus Reform initially reported, the school planned to pay students $10 per hour to assume the responsibilities of “Social Justice Advocates,” which included hosting monthly “social justice modules” for RAs and bi-semesterly “Real Talks” with residents, while arranging both “active” and “passive” social-justice programming.

“It’s best to use a title that isn’t politically charged. It just set off alarms.”  

Most controversially, though, the job description called for students filling the role to “report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff,” prompting many conservative pundits to point out that the school was effectively paying its students to “tattle on others.”

“So, let’s get this straight,” wrote Tom Knighton of PJ Media on Wednesday, in one example. “The university takes money from students and the Arizona taxpayers and funnels it toward a social justice Gestapo whose primary function seems to be a combination of social justice secret police and indoctrination activities, and this is supposed to be a good thing?”

The Thought Police.

In response, the university has scrubbed the job listing from its website, noting that it is “in the process of reviewing the title and responsibilities,” but providing no further details regarding possible revisions.

School officials told The Phoenix New Times that it planned on changing at least the title of the position since the term “social justice” elicited so many negative reactions.

University officials told the Phoenix New Times that it was likely the title soon would be changed because some people have strong feelings about the phrase “social justice.”

“It’s best to use a title that isn’t politically charged,” university spokesperson Pam Scott explained. “It just set off alarms.”

So Like Global Cooling…Warming…Climate Change…The The Thought Police job will get an Orwellian Makeover. It’s not like the University suddenly released what it was doing was a bad idea, just that the optics were wrong.

Typical Liberal. Never let their sanctimony get in the way of critical thinking. 🙂

The duties of the new position, which include reporting any “bias incidents” committed by students living in dorms, were being distorted by some members of the press, officials said.

Applications are no longer being taken. A help-wanted ad that was online but appears to have been taken down  stated that the job will, among other things, require the advocates to:

  • Create an environment that enables Residence Life student leaders to dialogue around topics related to diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice.”
  • Promote inclusive communities through positive interactions and increase resources available for staff on topics relating to diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice.”
  • Report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff,” and “confront diversely insensitive behavior.”

And of course, guess who’s fault it is… 🙂

Nick Sweeton, executive director of UA Residence Life and University Housing, said he believes a “trend” of unwelcoming behavior by some students against others began at the university after President Donald Trump’s election.

 

And they have learned nothing at all. After all, they are the superior morality…

The accused student’s name won’t be recorded in connection with an incident, but the student will be contacted by school officials. The school may “recalibrate” the type of reporting by the advocates as necessary, they said.

The advocates will create monthly programs regarding diversity and social-justice issues, maintain bulletin boards, host dialogues among student groups, and perform other related tasks. Officials hope the advocates, who are expected to have a “moderate” understanding of modern social-justice issues, will become a resource for students hoping to make changes in themselves or the university.

The university also asks the advocates to take time on the job to “increase understanding of one’s own self through critical reflection of power and privilege, identity and intersectionality, systems of socialization, cultural competency, and allyship as they pertain to the acknowledgement, understanding, and acceptance of differences.”

That part involves understanding of white privilege or critical race theory, which is the idea that racism in various forms is embedded in all parts of American culture, the officials said. But the advocates won’t be required to actually believe in those concepts to perform their jobs.

All the advocates will receive the same training for the job, regardless of their religious or ethnic background.

“Our goal is not impose a belief on students,” Sweeton said. “It’s simply to expose them to an idea. It does involve a lot of self-reflection. They’ll be trained on some areas in terms of self-identity.”

The advocates will then be prepared to enlighten other students.

“In a global economy and multicultural society, we think it’s important that people know how to engage in conversations like this,” he said.

Ironically, though, changing the name of social-justice advocates to something less offensive means the program’s first lesson for students is how to retreat from a conversation when the pressure’s on.

Make Orwellian excuses, Blame someone else for it when it goes haywire…Sounds like a Liberal idea alright…