Here's an article detailing the Xhale screecher for anyone wondering.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/39839/screaming-vape-shop-employee-fired-man-who-frank-camp
Here's an article detailing the Xhale screecher for anyone wondering.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/39839/screaming-vape-shop-employee-fired-man-who-frank-camp
Originally posted by dadudemon
While your point is correct, you may not be going far enough.Depending on how many leadership positions there are, it may be inappropriate to include even a single black person. If there are only 10 leadership positions, including even a single black person as a leader would be an over representation (especially if this was to the detriment of a native American position which would be rounded up to 1), if they are to be proportionally represented.
This is the problem with trying to be a moronic SJW with "proportional racial representation": you may end up forcing a racist narrative that you are supposedly against.
I highly doubt their leadership has even 10 members.
When you get to participants in the march, then you can start to see proportional representation if you have 100 or more marchers.
I had to do this shit for a living when staffing government contracts. You couldn't listen to the morons who cried about disproportionate representation. You had to go off of actual legit data. And when I'd compile the attestation report (had to demonstrate compliance or at least due diligence in hiring practices), it had to be clearly outlined. The report took less than 30 minutes.
However, when I inherited the position, we had 0 black people. None. That was a problem. I corrected it by hiring qualified candidates and veterans. I didn't have to give preferential treatment to minorities - there were plenty. Which indicates, to me, that there were ACTUAL racist hiring practices taking place before I took over. So, yeah, hey...legit racism still exists, Surtur.
So in the end we are left with an inescapable conclusion: the racist folk involved with this event felt this wouldn't give them enough virtue signaling opportunities. Given the makeup of the town no other explanation makes any sense.
Also the racism in the name of diversity is especially funny given the women's march in general(not this specific event) seemed to...not be all about diversity. Pro life groups were removed as partners for being "anti choice" lol. But...muh die-ver-city!
https://wjla.com/news/local/more-pro-life-groups-removed-as-partners-of-the-womens-march
And because I know how some of the leftists here work: no, you won't dismiss this cuz it says "Sinclair Broadcasting" at the top. The march itself admits to removing the groups, so might as well not even waste time trying to weasel out of this.(This isn't directed at DDM)
Aaaand I also know people will say "the groups removed as partners could still come march". Yup yup, they could. Still doesn't change the fact they were removed as partners over their views not being pro choice.
Originally posted by Surtur
So in the end we are left with an inescapable conclusion: the racist folk involved with this event felt this wouldn't give them enough virtue signaling opportunities. Given the makeup of the town no other explanation makes any sense.Also the racism in the name of diversity is especially funny given the women's march in general(not this specific event) seemed to...not be all about diversity. Pro life groups were removed as partners for being "anti choice" lol. But...muh die-ver-city!
https://wjla.com/news/local/more-pro-life-groups-removed-as-partners-of-the-womens-march
And because I know how some of the leftists here work: no, you won't dismiss this cuz it says "Sinclair Broadcasting" at the top. The march itself admits to removing the groups, so might as well not even waste time trying to weasel out of this.(This isn't directed at DDM)
Aaaand I also know people will say "the groups removed as partners could still come march". Yup yup, they could. Still doesn't change the fact they were removed as partners over their views not being pro choice.
This seems like a racist, bigoted, and prejudiced group. Foul from the ground up.
But I expect that type of "corruption" from groups like this. A group that is in the business of virtue signaling non-issues is bound to have corruption and moral problems. It's the same problem I have with religious GOP people.
Originally posted by Surtur
Pro life groups were removed as partners for being "anti choice" lol. But...muh die-ver-city!https://wjla.com/news/local/more-pro-life-groups-removed-as-partners-of-the-womens-march
And because I know how some of the leftists here work: no, you won't dismiss this cuz it says "Sinclair Broadcasting" at the top. The march itself admits to removing the groups, so might as well not even waste time trying to weasel out of this.(This isn't directed at DDM)
Aaaand I also know people will say "the groups removed as partners could still come march". Yup yup, they could. Still doesn't change the fact they were removed as partners over their views not being pro choice.
Who the **** cares? Are they not a private organization? Do they not have the right to decide with whom they will partner?
Furthermore, if one group supports the full, constitutionally-guaranteed reproductive rights of women, and another not only opposes, but actively seeks to curtail those rights, then why should they be included?
That is like arguing that anti-LGBT groups should be allowed to march in a Pride parade. It is ****ing stupid, and so is the person suggesting it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who the **** cares? Are they not a private organization? Do they not have the right to decide with whom they will partner?Furthermore, if one group supports the full, constitutionally-guaranteed reproductive rights of women, and another not only opposes, but actively seeks to curtail those rights, then why should they be included?
That is like arguing that anti-LGBT groups should be allowed to march in a Pride parade. It is ****ing stupid, and so is the person suggesting it.
Point is they whine about diversity, but really aren't that interested in diversity of thought, just skin color, genitalia, and sexuality. Nobody said they don't have the right to partner with who they want.
And this was a march celebrating women in general, and they come in all different flavors. It is not anything like a Pride parade having anti LGBT groups there.
Originally posted by Surtur
Point is they whine about diversity, but really aren't that interested in diversity of thought, just skin color, genitalia, and sexuality. Nobody said they don't have the right to partner with who they want.And this was a march celebrating women in general, and they come in all different flavors. It is not anything like a Pride parade having anti LGBT groups there.
And that is a pointless criticism, because they are organized around a set of beliefs that does not include curtailing the rights of women. So to hold that up as an example of them not respecting diversity is preposterous, because it is not the sort of diversity they claim to be about, nor should they.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
And that is a pointless criticism, because they are organized around a set of beliefs that does not include curtailing the rights of women. So to hold that up as an example of them not respecting diversity is preposterous, because it is not the sort of diversity they claim to be about, nor should they.
They claimed to be for all women, said every woman in the movement matters, and that they wanna lift up the voices of women who are left out, etc. lol
But hey you do you.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who the **** cares? Are they not a private organization? Do they not have the right to decide with whom they will partner?
That doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it. Using this as a shield from criticism is horseshit. Nobody here is calling for legal action against the Women's March for doing this. You've basically constructed a strawman out of what Surtur is saying so you can feel clever and falsely accuse us of going against our own principles.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Furthermore, if one group supports the full, constitutionally-guaranteed reproductive rights of women, and another not only opposes, but actively seeks to curtail those rights, then why should they be included?
Like somewhere around 40% of women are pro-life. So is this a march for women? OR is it a march for only the interests of 55% of women?
That's my problem with marches that have these broad benevolent sounding names like "The Women's march" or "The March for Science" that brand themselves in such a way where if you oppose them... well YOU MUST BE AGAINST WOMEN OR SCIENCE!!! But in reality they aren't as encompassing as the name would lead you to believe and are aimed at a very specific set of partisan interests.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is like arguing that anti-LGBT groups should be allowed to march in a Pride parade. It is ****ing stupid, and so is the person suggesting it.
Also I resent the implication that several wonderful pro-life women that I know, including my mom who survived breast cancer and worked hard for several years to give me a good life, are sexist women who hate their own kind or some shit. You're basically calling roughly 40% of women including my mother whatever the female equivalent of an Uncle Tom is. I take issue with this, I find it morally reprehensible, but consistent with your other behavior.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who the **** cares? Are they not a private organization? Do they not have the right to decide with whom they will partner?Furthermore, if one group supports the full, constitutionally-guaranteed reproductive rights of women, and another not only opposes, but actively seeks to curtail those rights, then why should they be included?
That is like arguing that anti-LGBT groups should be allowed to march in a Pride parade. It is ****ing stupid, and so is the person suggesting it.
Oh, really? They re purely private? I thought they had government funding.
If they are private, this entire situation is irrelevant.
I'm quickly losing interest in this case.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, really? They re purely private? I thought they had government funding.If they are private, this entire situation is irrelevant.
I'm quickly losing interest in this case.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, really? They re purely private? I thought they had government funding.If they are private, this entire situation is irrelevant.
I'm quickly losing interest in this case.
They clearly have a close relationship with PP. I know it gets donations, but also government funding. Oh and speaking of that? El oh motherf*cking el.
NOW And Planned Parenthood MELT DOWN Over Whether To Stand By Anti-Semitic Women's March Leaders
Btw this was never about me thinking they don't have the right to do it, just pointing out they go on about diversity and yet seem hostile to pro life women.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
If they were publicly funded I would argue they should be shut the **** down immediately. The government has no business funding partisan political activism.
Yeah I never thought it was publicly funded, at least I hope nothing goes to it.
But I mean...the argument was never "they do not have the legal right to do this".
Originally posted by NemeBro
Here, let me outline the actual post you're misrepresenting."The below PSA has just been released. Thank you to the women and men who helped make this decision.
Humboldt County organizers and supporters of the annual Women's March have decided to not hold a rally in Eureka on January 19th. This decision was made after many conversations between local social-change organizers and supporters of the march.
The local organizers are continuing to meet and discuss how to [b]broaden representation in the organizing committee
to create an event that represents and supports peoples who live here in Humboldt. Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community. Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach. Our goal is that planning will continue and we will be successful in creating an event that will build power and community engagement through connection between women that seek to improve the lives of all in our community.The group is exploring holding an event in March to celebrate International Women’s Day. Anyone interested in helping organize these events are welcome and encouraged to attend.
The Eureka Women's March organizing committee encourages local supporters to attend the Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration in Eureka on January 21, Martin Luther King Jr. Day."
It isn't the lack of diversity in the marchers that they are concerned with, but that of the organizing committee itself.
So where's the racism in wanting to have racially diverse viewpoints on your committee? Whites are not being excluded, they just want viewpoints that are non-white as well. And it is one thing to think their goal to have a diverse committee is pointless, but that isn't what you're saying. You're saying they are being racist. Why is that my friend? [/B]
👆
Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah I never thought it was publicly funded, at least I hope nothing goes to it.But I mean...the argument was never "they do not have the legal right to do this".
No, the entire story changes if they are not publicly funded. If it is just a private group, sure, we can mock them for being hypocrites but we should support their right to be racist with their private group because it's part of a set of free speech rights we are all afforded.
Make sense?
It's the same situation with the organization formerly known as the Boy Scouts of America. They were heavily publicly funded. They couldn't get away with their bigotry. They had to either change or become purely privately funded.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the entire story changes if they are not publicly funded. If it is just a private group, sure, we can mock them for being hypocrites but we should support their right to be racist with their private group because it's part of a set of free speech rights we are all afforded.Make sense?
It's the same situation with the organization formerly known as the Boy Scouts of America. They were heavily publicly funded. They couldn't get away with their bigotry. They had to either change or become purely privately funded.
Well the entire reason I brought it up was to mock them for being hypocrites lol.
But just so I understand this correctly: it is okay for a private group to be racist, but a private company cannot be racist?
Originally posted by Surtur
But just so I understand this correctly: it is okay for a private group to be racist, but a private company cannot be racist?
Correct. 👆
It's our constitutional right. 🙂
Edit -
Wait, saw the company thing at the end.
Small companies can be racist, yes. 15 or fewer employees. Adding the 16th employee, however, you lose those protections.
The idea goes, "You're too big and organized to be considered an individual, now. Now you have to play by the regulations we have legislated for companies."
Originally posted by Emperordmb
They have the right to do it, and they should have the right to do it.That doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it. Using this as a shield from criticism is horseshit. Nobody here is calling for legal action against the Women's March for doing this. You've basically constructed a strawman out of what Surtur is saying so you can feel clever and falsely accuse us of going against our own principles.
Privately-funded groups are permitted to have exclusionary membership requirements. If someone wants to be a member of a group that will not have them, that is none of my concern. It only becomes my concern when that group is receiving public funds, or is extending its exclusionary membership practices to members of the public with whom the group interacts. Outside of those scenarios, I do not care and neither should anyone else. Do not like it? Do not be a member of that group. Push on down the road.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Except IIRC this was a woman's group of pro-life feminists, not some antifeminist group of men. They also weren't marching specifically for pro-life, they just happened to be a group of pro-life women who agreed with a lot of the marches other goals.Like somewhere around 40% of women are pro-life. So is this a march for women? OR is it a march for only the interests of 55% of women?
That's my problem with marches that have these broad benevolent sounding names like "The Women's march" or "The March for Science" that brand themselves in such a way where if you oppose them... well YOU MUST BE AGAINST WOMEN OR SCIENCE!!! But in reality they aren't as encompassing as the name would lead you to believe and are aimed at a very specific set of partisan interests.
If the march is organized around advancing the rights of women, then only the Pro-Life position is consistent with that goal. Not because it is taking a particular stand on the issue of abortion, but because it errs on the side of more freedom for women, not less. Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion, it is literally the right of a women to choose for herself. The Pro-Life position literally advocates for less rights for women. Now, it is up to each woman to reconcile her feelings about abortion with her feminism. However, it would not be consistent with the goal of advancing the rights of women to allow a group who wants to restrict the rights of women to participate in an official capacity, just because that group is comprised of women. Not only would that be antithetical to the goal, it would also be sexist.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
No a more appropriate comparison would be arguing LGBT groups that don't agree that the baker should be forced to bake the cake should be allowed to participate in a Pride parade.Also I resent the implication that several wonderful pro-life women that I know, including my mom who survived breast cancer and worked hard for several years to give me a good life, are sexist women who hate their own kind or some shit. You're basically calling roughly 40% of women including my mother whatever the female equivalent of an Uncle Tom is. I take issue with this, I find it morally reprehensible, but consistent with your other behavior.
Those groups would not be welcome to participate either for similar reasons. Your religious beliefs do not make you exempt from following laws you do not like. You cannot march for LGBT rights, while supporting the desire of people to opt out of the laws that protect LGBT people. I mean, you are welcome to try, but that stupidity is not going to be indulged by almost anyone.