Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   We are extremely diverse and want to include everybody, except white heterosexual males   (radio.foxnews.com) divider line 409
    More: Ironic, heterosexuals, minority religion, diversity, student government  
•       •       •

17915 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 May 2013 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



409 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-18 02:43:12 PM  

Vectron: Duke_leto_Atredes: Point of order, white males do not need special laws to protect us. We who have raped and pillaged across the world throughout time....

It's been a messy past but whites (and I include women in partnership with men) have created a culture fit for our people with laws and technology and arts that can't be touched by anyone else.
Sub-Saharan Africans had not invented the wheel at the time they were brought over for slavery (And please don't state that the populist but ridiculous theories of Jared Diamond are fact).
Try not taking for granted that European civilization "just happened" to white people. This has to be said once in awhile.
Every people has something to be proud of but I prefer living in my culture.


Everyone knows the Scots basically invented the modern world.
 
2013-05-18 02:45:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1:Clearly you didn't read the editorial from the Daily Northwestern, or didn't read it carefully. Would you require minority applicants to those same criteria of prior experience?

Uh, yeah? Why wouldn't I? Generally don't you want people with prior experience in leadership positions? Why don't you?


Of course you do. So why is white and heterosexual a factor at all?
 
2013-05-18 02:45:39 PM  
Also from the editorial:


Sargent Hall senator Jesse Seitz asked Stephen Piotrkowski if being a white male helped his nomination for associate vice president of diversity and inclusion.

"When you're forced to work with all these multicultural groups that are, for the most part, not made up of white males, do you think you have the perspective that is not their perspective, to bring to them?" asked Seitz
To further diversity and inclusion, it might be a good idea to expose these multicultural groups to perspectives that are not theirs.  If there is not a white, hetero, male group among "all these multicultural groups," that's a serious failing of the D&I movement.

Or maybe "diversity and inclusion" doesn't mean what it pretends to mean.
 
2013-05-18 02:46:28 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1:Clearly you didn't read the editorial from the Daily Northwestern, or didn't read it carefully. Would you require minority applicants to those same criteria of prior experience?

Uh, yeah? Why wouldn't I? Generally don't you want people with prior experience in leadership positions? Why don't you?

Of course you do. So why is white and heterosexual a factor at all?


I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't a qualification for office, which you appear to think it is.
 
2013-05-18 02:47:50 PM  
Wait, you mean "diversity" is actually a code-word for "affirmative action?"  No, shiat.
 
2013-05-18 02:48:53 PM  

kwame: cig-mkr: kwame: cig-mkr: Can't have  white heterosexual males on diversity panels, but we sure can make them look like clowns on commercials.

Being represented poorly is at least still being represented. Count the ethnicities represented on commercials during one afternoon of television. Write that tiny number down. Then get over yourself.

I do see diversity in commercials, probably not enough but how often are the minorities portrayed as bumbling idiots vs. white males ? Write that tiny number down .

This is the most ridiculously stupid chip I've seen on anyone's shoulder in years. Kudos.


Not a chip, a very small pet peeve.
 
2013-05-18 02:51:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1:Clearly you didn't read the editorial from the Daily Northwestern, or didn't read it carefully. Would you require minority applicants to those same criteria of prior experience?

Uh, yeah? Why wouldn't I? Generally don't you want people with prior experience in leadership positions? Why don't you?

Of course you do. So why is white and heterosexual a factor at all?

I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't a qualification for office, which you appear to think it is.


No, I don't think it is a qualification at all. I do not, however, think it should be a disqualification. It should be a non-factor.
 
2013-05-18 02:51:24 PM  
He's not qualified.  He hasn't got any free time between whipping brown people, abusing and objectifying women, hoarding gold and trading in illegal diamonds and putting puppies on spikes.  My God, people, have you never been to a diversity meting?  This is what white men DO.
 
2013-05-18 02:51:50 PM  

Elegy: So this is the thread where Fark bands together in collective outrage that someone would be explicitly passed over for a position because of their sexuality, gender, or race, and raises a great battle cry of equality and justice for all human beings, right?

Right?

W-why are you all laughing at me?


Because you're raising a ruckus over some guy getting butthurt over not being selected as an officer for a farking student government.
 
2013-05-18 02:52:21 PM  
I was actually passed over for a contract to do produce some multi-cultural educational materials back in the 1990's. The meeting was set up by a white male friend of mine. I was the best qualified for this particular project but the wise Latina project manager didn't think I had the right qualifications/pigmentation. It was no big amount of money but I thought it would be fun. That was my first taste of discrimination.
 
2013-05-18 02:52:26 PM  

Nabb1: I do not, however, think it should be a disqualification. It should be a non-factor.


The only people who think it is a disqualification are butthurt conservatives who think that's the only reason he was voted down.
 
2013-05-18 02:53:11 PM  

Vectron: but the wise Latina project manager didn't think I had the right qualifications/pigmentation


I'm surprised you didn't start out this clearly-true anecdote with "I'm not a racist, but"
 
2013-05-18 02:54:07 PM  
A brief glimpse of history will add credence to the notion that the oppressed never want freedom or equality.  They want to beat the oppressor with a stick and steal his hat and wear it.
 
2013-05-18 02:54:22 PM  
anyone think maybe they're discriminating against him because of his Polish heritage, and they just don't want a dumb pollack head of anything?
 
2013-05-18 02:55:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: I do not, however, think it should be a disqualification. It should be a non-factor.

The only people who think it is a disqualification are butthurt conservatives who think that's the only reason he was voted down.


Does that include the author of the editorial for the Daily Northwestern who had firsthand knowledge of the situation?
 
2013-05-18 02:56:08 PM  
It's funny how the ones who are the majority and hold the most power tend to be the ones who complain the loudest when they feel they're being "persecuted" and "discriminated against". Especially when it comes to not being able to be the majority and hold the power.
 
2013-05-18 02:56:14 PM  

Umfufu: anyone think maybe they're discriminating against him because of his Polish heritage, and they just don't want a dumb pollack head of anything?


Pretty sharp words from somebody who was, two months ago, sitting buck naked on a zebra with a bone in her nose.
 
2013-05-18 02:57:31 PM  

Umfufu: anyone think maybe they're discriminating against him because of his Polish heritage, and they just don't want a dumb pollack head of anything?


Northwestern is just outside of Chicago. Excluding people of Polish ancestry would wipe out a third of the campus.
 
2013-05-18 02:57:41 PM  
George Orwell said, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

Now one could say, If you want a vision of the future depiction of white people, imagine the image of a white man whipping a black man forever.


www.loc.gov
 
2013-05-18 02:58:36 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: I do not, however, think it should be a disqualification. It should be a non-factor.

The only people who think it is a disqualification are butthurt conservatives who think that's the only reason he was voted down.

Does that include the author of the editorial for the Daily Northwestern who had firsthand knowledge of the situation?


Yep. Even him. Are you saying there's no way he could have been biased? Just because he was there doesn't mean he's correct.
 
2013-05-18 02:58:45 PM  
The Facebook comments are whiter than a rice & mayo sandwich in a snowstorm.
 
2013-05-18 02:58:58 PM  

bunner: Umfufu: anyone think maybe they're discriminating against him because of his Polish heritage, and they just don't want a dumb pollack head of anything?

Pretty sharp words from somebody who was, two months ago, sitting buck naked on a zebra with a bone in her nose.


Careful. You'll lose half your stuff.
 
2013-05-18 02:59:26 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1:Clearly you didn't read the editorial from the Daily Northwestern, or didn't read it carefully. Would you require minority applicants to those same criteria of prior experience?

Uh, yeah? Why wouldn't I? Generally don't you want people with prior experience in leadership positions? Why don't you?

Of course you do. So why is white and heterosexual a factor at all?


How did the student government determine that the candidate is heterosexual?

The comment about "white, heterosexual male" was made by Ian Coley, a member of the diversity committee.  I think he was not describing this particular candidate but rather an archetype that "no university" is ready to accept in a diversity leadership position.

As the editorial noted, representatives of several multicultural groups were present during the candidate's consideration and voiced strong objections to him.  We are not told what those objections were.  But if many of the people you'd have to work with don't want you, then you are the wrong candidate for the job.  Remember Adrian Richards?
 
2013-05-18 02:59:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: I do not, however, think it should be a disqualification. It should be a non-factor.

The only people who think it is a disqualification are butthurt conservatives who think that's the only reason he was voted down.

Does that include the author of the editorial for the Daily Northwestern who had firsthand knowledge of the situation?

Yep. Even him. Are you saying there's no way he could have been biased? Just because he was there doesn't mean he's correct.


You are the one accusing him of bias.  Why is that?
 
2013-05-18 03:00:27 PM  

cig-mkr: Not a chip, a very small pet peeve.


Those are commonly known as "chips." :-)
 
2013-05-18 03:00:49 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: It's funny how the ones who are the majority and hold the most power tend to be the ones who complain the loudest when they feel they're being "persecuted" and "discriminated against". Especially when it comes to not being able to be the majority and hold the power.


Why does this surprise you? How many people would willingly give up being king?
 
2013-05-18 03:01:04 PM  

pueblonative: Elegy: So this is the thread where Fark bands together in collective outrage that someone would be explicitly passed over for a position because of their sexuality, gender, or race, and raises a great battle cry of equality and justice for all human beings, right?

Right?

W-why are you all laughing at me?

Because you're raising a ruckus over some guy getting butthurt over not being selected as an officer for a farking student government.


Show me the supposed ruckus I have raised in this thread. Go on. I'll wait.
 
2013-05-18 03:01:20 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: I do not, however, think it should be a disqualification. It should be a non-factor.

The only people who think it is a disqualification are butthurt conservatives who think that's the only reason he was voted down.

Does that include the author of the editorial for the Daily Northwestern who had firsthand knowledge of the situation?

Yep. Even him. Are you saying there's no way he could have been biased? Just because he was there doesn't mean he's correct.

You are the one accusing him of bias.  Why is that?


I didn't accuse him of bias. I want to know why you think he is not biased.
 
2013-05-18 03:02:30 PM  

ZeroCorpse: The Facebook comments are whiter than a rice & mayo sandwich in a snowstorm.


Are you saying its a Saltines extravaganza?
 
2013-05-18 03:03:06 PM  

bunner: A brief glimpse of history will add credence to the notion that the oppressed never want freedom or equality.  They want to beat the oppressor with a stick and steal his hat and wear it.


And if they'd just admit to this, I'd respect them a lot more. Quit trying to sell me "equality" and "diversity" when anyone with half a brain can clearly see that it's bullshiat.
 
2013-05-18 03:03:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: I do not, however, think it should be a disqualification. It should be a non-factor.

The only people who think it is a disqualification are butthurt conservatives who think that's the only reason he was voted down.

Does that include the author of the editorial for the Daily Northwestern who had firsthand knowledge of the situation?

Yep. Even him. Are you saying there's no way he could have been biased? Just because he was there doesn't mean he's correct.


One of the commenters claimed that no one from The Daily was there.  Hard to believe a student newspaper would not send someone to cover this event, but The Daily seems rather amateurish to me.
 
2013-05-18 03:04:18 PM  

JesusJuice: I'm pretty sure the real racism and bigotry was when he was voted down for no reason other than the color of his skin and sexual orientation.


Three candidates were voted down in the election. There's suddenly a shiatstorm about the white one. The white one who was, by the way, the most junior member to be nominated.

It's funny every time a bunch of white people get up in arms when they find out about a place where white people aren't in charge, and then are denied when they try to be in charge. "It's discrimination!" they cry.

But cheer up. Straight, white males control the vast majority of the government, the military, the private sector, entertainment industry, everything. Meanwhile white business owners think it's not racist to dump a resume in the garbage because the name at the top says "Latisha" or "Treyshawn" because they 'can't take that name seriously'. Between a black couple and a white couple with the exact same finances and credit rating, the white couple is much more likely to qualify for a bank loan. And more white children have gotten into colleges via "legacy" than affirmative action ever have- a chain of "legacy" that started before minority students were accepted by colleges at all.
 
2013-05-18 03:04:46 PM  
cameroncrazy1984: I didn'taccuse him of bias. I want to know why you think he is not biased.

Oh, did you not say that you included him with all of those "butthurt conservatives"?
 
2013-05-18 03:05:05 PM  

kingoomieiii: Three candidates were voted down in the election. There's suddenly a shiatstorm about the white one. The white one who was, by the way, the most junior member to be nominated.


Wait, are you telling me that it's entirely possible that it wasn't the color of his skin that was the deciding factor? Someone get me a fainting couch. I might faint!
 
2013-05-18 03:05:24 PM  

kingoomieiii: JesusJuice: I'm pretty sure the real racism and bigotry was when he was voted down for no reason other than the color of his skin and sexual orientation.

Three candidates were voted down in the election. There's suddenly a shiatstorm about the white one. The white one who was, by the way, the most junior member to be nominated.

It's funny every time a bunch of white people get up in arms when they find out about a place where white people aren't in charge, and then are denied when they try to be in charge. "It's discrimination!" they cry.

But cheer up. Straight, white males control the vast majority of the government, the military, the private sector, entertainment industry, everything. Meanwhile white business owners think it's not racist to dump a resume in the garbage because the name at the top says "Latisha" or "Treyshawn" because they 'can't take that name seriously'. Between a black couple and a white couple with the exact same finances and credit rating, the white couple is much more likely to qualify for a bank loan. And more white children have gotten into colleges via "legacy" than affirmative action ever have- a chain of "legacy" that started before minority students were accepted by colleges at all.


It's good to be King. Now run along and quit bothering us.
 
2013-05-18 03:08:17 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: I didn'taccuse him of bias. I want to know why you think he is not biased.

Oh, did you not say that you included him with all of those "butthurt conservatives"?


No, I included him in the set of people who believe that was the only reason he was voted down. A subset of these is "butthurt conservatives." And now we find out he wasn't the only candidate voted down. Do you think that it is more likely or less likely that his skin was a deciding factor, knowing that two of the other candidates who were non-white were also voted down, and that he was the most junior of the candidates?
 
2013-05-18 03:08:44 PM  
Things that really get to me: when you can say that having a group for whites only is racist, or a scholarship for whites only is racist, but at the same time you can have a group for blacks only or a scholarship for blacks only and it's not racist.  In both cases the scholarship or group was based upon skin color and nothing else, but the playbook that we have to accept states that one group plays by a different set of rules.  Why is that?  Some say because the U.S. once had slaves.  Well, the U.S. also liberated those slaves and no one alive today was a slave so that shouldn't be why.  Others point to everything before and during the civil rights era.  That was decades ago, and the insistence that it continue where every group possible, save for whites, gets an advantage is punishing more and more people who had nothing to do with the racism that sparked the civil rights movement and rewarding those who don't give two shiats about it.  If we as a nation honestly want to practice treating everyone equally, regardless of race or gender, then things like scholarships based on skin color or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation needs to come to an end.  We need to stop looking upon the white population as the group with all the advantages and recognize that we've created a system where they get shafted and anytime the prospect of a whites only item comes up we scream 'racism' to kill it, and then we go even further to call it 'reverse racism' when it comes to preventing the white population from having their own groups or scholarships or white only schools or even promoting white owned businesses and prevent any discussion on the matter of is it really reverse racism or is it flat out racism?

It doesn't matter the skin color, but prevent the advancement or promotion of one race so that the others get advantages is racism, end of story.
 
2013-05-18 03:09:17 PM  

kingoomieiii: JesusJuice: I'm pretty sure the real racism and bigotry was when he was voted down for no reason other than the color of his skin and sexual orientation.

Three candidates were voted down in the election. There's suddenly a shiatstorm about the white one. The white one who was, by the way, the most junior member to be nominated.

It's funny every time a bunch of white people get up in arms when they find out about a place where white people aren't in charge, and then are denied when they try to be in charge. "It's discrimination!" they cry.

But cheer up. Straight, white males control the vast majority of the government, the military, the private sector, entertainment industry, everything. Meanwhile white business owners think it's not racist to dump a resume in the garbage because the name at the top says "Latisha" or "Treyshawn" because they 'can't take that name seriously'. Between a black couple and a white couple with the exact same finances and credit rating, the white couple is much more likely to qualify for a bank loan....


Yeah there is absolutely no logical reason for it except racism.  Past experiences don't enter into it. And those evil, greedy white men won't put supermarkets into black neighborhoods because the want to starve black children rather than make money.
 
2013-05-18 03:11:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: I didn'taccuse him of bias. I want to know why you think he is not biased.

Oh, did you not say that you included him with all of those "butthurt conservatives"?

No, I included him in the set of people who believe that was the only reason he was voted down.


So, when I asked you if "butthurt conservatives" included him, and you said, "even him," that's not what you meant?
 
2013-05-18 03:12:52 PM  
Huh.  Seems this "diversity and inclusion task force" has been around only since Fall, 2012.

What a pathetic set of autobiographies, except for the very last guy - who wrote nothing. :-)

http://www.northwestern.edu/inclusion/about-us/meet-inclusion-task-f or ce.html
 
2013-05-18 03:13:34 PM  

halB: The best thing to ever happen to the civil rights movement was when that sheriff turned the fire hoses on those poor little black kids trying to go to school - in front of the cameras.  It wasn't until that scene that America realized just how ugly racism can be.

Soon, white heterosexual males will have a similar moment.


Are you farking kidding me?

Is there a group of people in this world more self-absorbedly annoying than heterosexual white dudes? When you guys live in a nation built upon slavery of white guys, where guys couldn't hold property or vote, or had to deal with decades of institutionalized racism then you can biatch about being oppressed. Until then you're still the highest paid and most powerful demographic in the country.
 
2013-05-18 03:13:48 PM  

Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: Nabb1: cameroncrazy1984: I didn'taccuse him of bias. I want to know why you think he is not biased.

Oh, did you not say that you included him with all of those "butthurt conservatives"?

No, I included him in the set of people who believe that was the only reason he was voted down.

So, when I asked you if "butthurt conservatives" included him, and you said, "even him," that's not what you meant?


You didn't ask if "butthurt conservatives" specifically included him. You asked "does that include him"?

Additionally, do you think that the fact that there were two other, more senior non-white candidates voted down is indicative that it must be the color of his skin that was the deciding factor?
 
2013-05-18 03:16:33 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Huh.  Seems this "diversity and inclusion task force" has been around only since Fall, 2012.

What a pathetic set of autobiographies, except for the very last guy - who wrote nothing. :-)

http://www.northwestern.edu/inclusion/about-us/meet-inclusion-task-f or ce.html


Major: Higher Education Administration and Policy
Major: Communication Studies
Major: Political Science and Spanish
Major: Creative Writing
Major: Social Policy
Major: Journalism
Major: etc.

Perhaps the white guy didn't get elected because he wasn't astronomically useless...

/just sayin'
 
2013-05-18 03:16:48 PM  

Great Janitor: Things that really get to me: when you can say that having a group for whites only is racist, or a scholarship for whites only is racist, but at the same time you can have a group for blacks only or a scholarship for blacks only and it's not racist. In both cases the scholarship or group was based upon skin color and nothing else, but the playbook that we have to accept states that one group plays by a different set of rules. Why is that? Some say because the U.S. once had slaves. Well, the U.S. also liberated those slaves and no one alive today was a slave so that shouldn't be why. Others point to everything before and during the civil rights era. That was decades ago, and the insistence that it continue where every group possible, save for whites, gets an advantage is punishing more and more people who had nothing to do with the racism that sparked the civil rights movement and rewarding those who don't give two shiats about it.


Whites have instituted many programs and laws to make blacks equal to whites in this country. I think its pretty plain that for whatever reason blacks haven't done their share of the work. They can't run a city that isn't corrupt and broken. Outside of entertainment and sports they don't seem to be compete, contribute and fit in our culture. Its time to stop blaming whitey (however valid that may be) and try to work on being less self destructive.
 
2013-05-18 03:17:09 PM  

kwame: cig-mkr: Can't have  white heterosexual males on diversity panels, but we sure can make them look like clowns on commercials.

Being represented poorly is at least still being represented. Count the ethnicities represented on commercials during one afternoon of television. Write that tiny number down. Then get over yourself.


i110.photobucket.com

Are you kidding? One McDonalds commercial would cover just about everyone. Except for Asians. Nobody gives a shiat about asians.
 
2013-05-18 03:17:13 PM  

Vectron: And those evil, greedy white men won't put supermarkets into black neighborhoods because the want to starve black children rather than make money.


If you want to know why there's no money moving through a given neighborhood, check the crime reports.  Lean into "crimes against  people", "robbery" and "assault".  Crime keeps you poor.  Because people spend money places where they ain't gonna get jacked.  And I don't give a sh*t if the people who live in that high crime area are white, black, plaid or light gray.  Money goes where money get what it pays for, and when it rolls smooth, that's what it stays for, or else it rolls out to the fine trimmed lawns, the storefronts close and the neighborhood's gone.  The ghetto isn't where you live, it's how you live.  Buildings are ideologically inert.  Deal.
 
2013-05-18 03:20:01 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Huh.  Seems this "diversity and inclusion task force" has been around only since Fall, 2012.

What a pathetic set of autobiographies, except for the very last guy - who wrote nothing. :-)

http://www.northwestern.edu/inclusion/about-us/meet-inclusion-task-f or ce.html


"Sarah wanted to be on the task force to support our new division in identifying the core problems regarding diversity and inclusion on our campus and implementing new strategies to fix them."


All the black members are into race issues. That shouldn't be what you use higher edumacation for.
 
2013-05-18 03:20:12 PM  
1. "White Heterosexual Male" is still the default in this society. Claims of "discrimination" by the group that still runs everything are bullsh*t. Stop whining because you can only get 99% instead of 100% of everything like your forefathers did.
2. FTA: "Todd is the author of Dispatches From Bitter America."  All you need to know bout this asshole right here.
 
2013-05-18 03:21:46 PM  

kwame: halB: The best thing to ever happen to the civil rights movement was when that sheriff turned the fire hoses on those poor little black kids trying to go to school - in front of the cameras.  It wasn't until that scene that America realized just how ugly racism can be.

Soon, white heterosexual males will have a similar moment.

LOL

Seriously?


So much butthurt in this thread.  If we could just find some way to harness it, we wouldn't need to worry about oil.
 
2013-05-18 03:21:59 PM  
Quite honestly the only demographic that is trending towards ' discriminated against' is obese people. Smokers have already lost, there is nothing to be gained by discriminating against them further.

I'm not sure where it will go in the future. It is probably asking too much to hope that people who drive like self absorbed assholes are discriminated against.
 
Displayed 50 of 409 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report