Universities are not for education any more; they’re for indoctrination.
The article is at the link below, but for even more context check out Matt Christiansen’s video on the subject.
Every time diversity scolds go after someone, they talk about wanting a more “representative sample” of America in which you have to have precisely the appropriate mix of skin tones to meet the criteria of social justice warriors everywhere.
Last week Google proclaimed it was making excellent progress on diversity. Here’s the chart they shared, pointing out it was progress but that they had work to do.
Unless America has completely changed its demographics, these numbers are completely unrepresentative, as is obvious. Unless of course white people have slid off the demographic scale and Asians are taking over the country.
Not to mention the gender chart, which shows a major bit of lopsidedness as well as only two genders; I thought Google loved the new multi-gender world?
Everything about this report belies everything they say they stand for.
There was no significant rise in American “hate crimes” between 2004 and 2015, according to a new analysis from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). But the types of prejudice suspected in such incidents has shifted, with crimes peceived to be motivated by racial bias on the wane but those seen as motivated by gender or gender-identity bias spiking.
Despite the now-popular perception that bias-based violence is getting worse overall, “the rate of violent hate crime victimization” in 2015 “was not significantly different from the rate in 2004,” BJS reports. And this absence of a statistically significant change “held true for violent hate crimes both reported and unreported to police.”
We’ll have to see what happens when 2016 stats come out; from what I’ve been told by the reputable guardians of truth in the media, this will be an obvious turn about 180 degrees from prior years due to “Trump’s America.”
There are people in this country who can safely express their anger. And those who can’t. If you’re angry that Trump won, your anger is socially acceptable. If you were angry that Obama won, it wasn’t.
James Hodgkinson’s rage was socially acceptable. It continued to be socially acceptable until he crossed the line into murder. And he’s not alone. There’s Micah Xavier Johnson, the Black Lives Matter cop-killer in Dallas, and Gavin Long, the Black Lives Matter cop-killer in Baton Rouge. If you’re black and angry about the police, your anger is celebrated. If you’re white and angry about the Terror travel ban, the Paris Climate treaty, ObamaCare repeal or any leftist cause, you’re on the side of the angry angels. But if you’re white and angry that your job is going to China or that you just missed being killed in a Muslim suicide bombing, your anger is unacceptable.
If you’re an angry leftist, your party leader, Tom Perez will scream and curse into a microphone, and your aspiring presidential candidate, Kirsten Gillibrand, will curse along, to channel the anger of the base. But if you’re an angry conservative, then Trump channeling your anger is “dangerous” because you aren’t allowed to be angry.
Not all anger is created equal. Some anger is privileged rage.
Read the rest.
Whenever anyone points out being in a “peer-reviewed journal” as an indicator of an author’s veracity, just remember this story.
A piece on the “conceptual penis” published in the journal Cogent Social Sciences, self described as “a multidisciplinary open access journal offering high quality peer review across the social sciences: from law to sociology, politics to geography, and sport to communication studies. Connect your research with a global audience for maximum readership and impact.”
Whether or not you know who PewDiePie is, if free speech matters to you, this is a must-watch video. If not, well what the hell are you doing here in the first place?